Cato Institute
Policy Analysis
<<  <  >  >>
If the $87 billion
rate welfare programs, Congress soon found
Government or from the official publications
itself unable, because of institutional and
of the agencies, bureaus, and programs.
in corporate wel-
political biases, to downsize the defense bud-
fare were elimi-
get at a time when doing so was widely and
Department of Agriculture
nated tomorrow,
often cited by members of both parties as an
Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund. The
important goal.
Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund provides
and personal
Another benefit for taxpayers of having a
direct loans and loan guarantees for people
income taxes were
commission address the issue of corporate
seeking credit to improve or purchase farms
welfare is that those often egregious pro-
or to offset the cost of operating a farm.
lowered by the
grams could be discussed openly and pub-
There is no reason taxpayers should subsi-
same amount for
licly in a focused proceeding. The exposure of
dize this activity, especially when it is dupli-
the year, taxpay-
a substantial portion of the federal budget--
cated by the private sector.
indeed, an overall reappraisal of what the fed-
Agricultural  Marketing  Service.  The
ers would receive
eral government does--is a long-needed tonic
Agricultural Marketing Service collects data
a tax cut more
to the current state of affairs.
on agricultural commodity markets and,
than twice as
through its Market News reports, makes that
information available to agricultural produc-
large as the rebate
Conclusion
ers, processors, distributors, and others to
checks mailed out
assist them in the marketing and distribu-
If the $87 billion in corporate welfare were
tion of farm products. Through its market
in 2001.
eliminated tomorrow, and personal income
protection and promotion activities, AMS
taxes were lowered by the same amount for the
aids in the promotion of cotton, potatoes,
year, taxpayers would receive a tax cut more
eggs, milk and dairy products, beef, pork,
than twice as large as the rebate checks mailed
soybeans, honey, watermelon, mushrooms,
out in 2001. The budget savings over five years
wool, lamb, and cut flowers.
would amount to $435 billion, far more than
Agricultural Research Service. The Agricul-
the marginal income tax rate reductions in the
tural Research Service conducts research
recent tax cut, which amount to $298 billion
focused on increasing the productivity of the
over five years. Cutting corporate welfare
nation's land and water resources, improving
would be an excellent show not only of fiscal
the quality of agricultural products, and find-
prudence but also of willingness to begin the
ing new uses for those products. As that
much-needed reassessment of the current role
research inevitably serves to enhance the prof-
of government and to make a hearty attempt
itability of farming, it should be funded direct-
at returning the federal government to consti-
ly by private farmers, not by all taxpayers.
tutional limits.
Commodity Credit Corporation: BioEnergy
Program. This program provides "incentive
payments" to producers of ethanol, biodiesel,
Appendix 1: Descriptions of
and other bio-based fuels. Most of the money
Corporate Welfare
goes to giant agricultural companies such as
Archer Daniels Midland. Taxpayer money
Programs
should not be used to underwrite the profit
margin of any company or producer of fuel
This appendix provides descriptions of
or any other product.
the programs this report categorizes as cor-
porate welfare. These programs should be
Commodity Credit Corporation: Export Loans
Program. The Commodity Credit Corpora-
eliminated, or in some cases privatized, and
tion's Export Loans Program promotes the
the savings should be returned to the taxpay-
export of U.S. agricultural commodities by
er by cutting taxes. Unless otherwise indicat-
providing guaranteed and subsidized loans
ed, the information used in the descriptions
to the purchasers of those exports. The U.S.
comes from the Budget of the United States
16